Which party engages in more extreme distortion of facts?

[deejaydana]

But, please, continue with your obviously self-indulgent and hyperbolic generalizations. They're clearly making you feel better.

If it wasn't for hyperbolic generalizations (is that an oxymoron?) 90% of the political threads on this board would wither and die.

[Hubbs]

If it wasn't for hyperbolic generalizations (is that an oxymoron?) 90% of the political threads on this board would wither and die.

Well you don't expect us to have a rational debate about these things, do you? I mean, come on, Republicans want to arrest all gays and Democrats want to execute Grandma! Everybody knows this.

[Larry]

If it wasn't for hyperbolic generalizations (is that an oxymoron?) 90% of the political threads on this board would wither and die.

Hey, don't forget made up statistics.

[deejaydana]

Hey, don't forget made up statistics.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

[Kilmer17]

Well you don't expect us to have a rational debate about these things, do you? I mean, come on, Republicans want to arrest all gays and Democrats want to execute Grandma! Everybody knows this.

And Libertarians want to execute gay grandmas.

[Hubbs]

And Libertarians want to execute gay grandmas.

How did you find out about The Plan?

[TheItalianStallion]

The dems. From claiming that Bush "lied about the WMD [1]" to "Scooter Libby outed Valerie Plame [2]" to calling Bush "far-right, unwilling to compromise [3]" to whining about being "oppressed" by Bush, nothing the reps have said came close to the lies of the dems.

[1] Multiple independent investigations have cleared Bush and Blair of lying charges.

[2]Plame was "outed" by Clinton holdover and Iraq war critic Richard Armitage. Fitzgerald knew that before the investingation even began, and everyone he investigated turned out to be innocent, the purjury trap set on Libby aside. In short, the Plamegate "investigation" was a witch hunt.

[3] Bush tried to continue the bipartisan tradition that earned him the support of so many Democrat lawmakers in Texas by reaching out socially to members of the other party (things like inviting Ted Kennedy to the White House to watch the movie Thirteen Days), particularly his first few years in office, and he earned the ire of his conservative base by compromising so much on liberal spending bills in hopes of ultimately getting some give in return on other issues like much needed social security reform. Needless to say Democrats in Washington are a different breed than Democrats in Austin so that good will was never reciprocated and instead of good faith compromises liberals sensed blood in the water and stepped up their virulent and incessant attacks, with leaders of the party routinely calling Bush things like a "liar", an "idiot", and "unAmerican". Gore even gave a rabid speech where he screamed at the top of his lungs that the President was a traitor. Despite all that, Bush, again, much to the chagrin of his base, never stooped to the level of his opponents and only rarely issued overtly partisan criticisms of the Democrats even on substantive issues. In fact he often didn’t bother to energetically defend himself from a PR standpoint against various unfair attacks, especially in his second term. One may disagree with Bush’s policy decisions, but only a moron or a rabid partisan would say the guy is mean spirited or doesn’t have class.

A short list of liberal policies he implemented:

-Let Ted Kennedy write the education bill, doubling the size of the Ed dept.

-Expanded Medicare via the Prescription drug bill

-Left the borders wide open and tried to grant amnesty to illegals

-Went along with bumerous liberal spending bills

-Implemented Keynesian "tax cuts"

-TARP

[Baculus]

The dems. From claiming that Bush "lied about the WMD [1]" to "Scooter Libby outed Valerie Plame [2]" to calling Bush "far-right, unwilling to compromise [3]" to whining about being "oppressed" by Bush, nothing the reps have said came close to the lies of the dems.

This paragraph is entirely untrue.

[1] Multiple independent investigations have cleared Bush and Blair of lying charges.

Yellowcake anyone?

The Bush administration was not totally honest about WMDs and the pre-war build up to the Iraqi invasion. Also, multiple investigations have not "cleared" Blair and Bush because there haven't been "multiple" investigations into their conduct of the war in the first place. What multiple investigations have determined is that 1) the WMD threat was not as dire as thought, and 2) Cheney and other members of the Bush administration misled the American public through distortion of intelligence data, and 3) the pre-war assessments of WMDs and terrorist ties were not found to be totally accurate. This isn't entirely the blame of the administration, but they decided to embark on a war based upon this data.

[2]Plame was "outed" by Clinton holdover and Iraq war critic Richard Armitage. Fitzgerald knew that before the investingation even began, and everyone he investigated turned out to be innocent, the purjury trap set on Libby aside. In short, the Plamegate "investigation" was a witch hunt.

This is an out and out distortion.

Richard Armitage is a REPUBLICAN. He got his start under Sen. Bob Dole, served under President Reagan, and after entering the private world, he was a signer to the "Project for the New American Century" letter sent to then President Clinton in 1998. (This is the infamous letter that supports an invasion of Iraq). He then served as a consultant for Bush under the 2000 campaign, after which he was appointed as Deputy Secretary of State during the Bush administration.

He was NOT a leftover from Clinton -- this is another distortion and an out and out falsehood.

Armitage was supportive of the war and later regretted such support due to the dubious intelligence that I referenced earlier (though I think he is playing a game of CYA with this admittance).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)

Also, Scooter Libby served time in jail for his involvement. If he was not the source of the leak, he certainly had a role somewhere and served time in jail for it.

"In his trial for his role in the Plame affair, United States v. Libby,[4][5] the jury convicted Libby on four of the five counts in the indictment: one count of obstruction of justice; two counts of perjury; and one count of making false statements to federal investigators."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby

[3] Bush tried to continue the bipartisan tradition that earned him the support of so many Democrat lawmakers in Texas by reaching out socially to members of the other party (things like inviting Ted Kennedy to the White House to watch the movie Thirteen Days), particularly his first few years in office, and he earned the ire of his conservative base by compromising so much on liberal spending bills in hopes of ultimately getting some give in return on other issues like much needed social security reform.

Your entire "far right" point is irrelevant to the debate and your paragraph did nothing to prove a point. How many elected officials of the Democratic party were calling him "far right"? In comparison, how many elected Republicans have suggested that Obama is "far left"?

You trot out some examples (Bush inviting Kennedy to watch a movie) that have nothing to do with real policy outcomes.

Bush's Republican based supported him through most of his terms of office -- he didn't earn the ire "of his conservative base by compromising so much on liberal spending bills" because he had popular support from this base until the day he left office.

I rarely heard any conservative complaints when he was signing these bills, at least from Bush conservatives or neo-conservatives. (Which were the bulk of his base.)

Needless to say Democrats in Washington are a different breed than Democrats in Austin so that good will was never reciprocated and instead of good faith compromises liberals sensed blood in the water and stepped up their virulent and incessant attacks, with leaders of the party routinely calling Bush things like a "liar", an "idiot", and "unAmerican".

So, you can find "routine" examples of elected Democrats calling Bush a ""liar", an "idiot", and "unAmerican"? You can source them, provide links and everything?

For some reason I don't think you will be able to provide a great body of evidence. (This isn't to say that there were a number of people calling bush all of those insults -- heck, just go to Alex Jones website if you want to see this. And Jones isn't a liberal, either.)

Gore even gave a rabid speech where he screamed at the top of his lungs that the President was a traitor.

Gore said that President Bush "took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure, dangerous to our troops, that was preordained and planned before 9-11," Gore told Tennessee Democrats at a party event. He said that Bush "betrayed us."

He did NOT scream at the "top of his lungs that the President was a traitor."

Another distortion on your part.

Despite all that, Bush, again, much to the chagrin of his base, never stooped to the level of his opponents and only rarely issued overtly partisan criticisms of the Democrats even on substantive issues. In fact he often didn’t bother to energetically defend himself from a PR standpoint against various unfair attacks, especially in his second term. One may disagree with Bush’s policy decisions, but only a moron or a rabid partisan would say the guy is mean spirited or doesn’t have class.

Bush was an OK individual and I believe, at the core, a moderate Republican (especially compared to some of his supporters), but we also have to examine the end result of his policies. Also, I believe you have engaged in a bit of hyperbole here.

A short list of liberal policies he implemented:

-Let Ted Kennedy write the education bill, doubling the size of the Ed dept.

Are you talking about "No Child Left Behind? Kennedy didn't write that bill -- he was one of the sponsors, but he didn't write it. (He was not supportive of the bill at first, either) Furthermore, the Bush administration didn't "double" the size of the US Department of Education funding. "Since enactment, Congress increased federal funding of education, from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007."

It pays to conduct research before making claims.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act

-Expanded Medicare via the Prescription drug bill

Medicare is supported by both the Left and Right, including conservatives such as Ronald Reagan when he was president.

-Left the borders wide open and tried to grant amnesty to illegals

Republicans and Democrats have different ideals on this. Some Democrats supported this; some opposed it. We have to remember that the last time we had a mass amnesty grant to illegals was during the Reagan administration.

-Went along with bumerous liberal spending bills

Please be specific.

-Implemented Keynesian "tax cuts"

Are you talking about EIC? Reagan supported that as well. Otherwise, the Bush tax cuts were not "Keynesian."

-TARP

TARP I was supported by Republicans.

IF this was your attempt to demonstrate that Democrats engage in more distortions, I would say you didn't succeed very well.

[Predicto]

Hilarious collection of falsehoods and half truths, aptly exposed by Baculus.

Dude, that was a laff riot to read.

Have you ever heard of the "No True Scotsman" principle? Every conservative should know it by heart by now.

[TheItalianStallion]

This paragraph is entirely untrue.

How so?

Yellowcake, anyone?

Assuming you're referring to the "12 words," Bush's statement that British intelligence concluded that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from "Africa" was true, and British intelligence still stands by that conclusion. They're also probably right, and it's been well established that Joe Wilson lied about his little "tea sipping" trip.

The Bush administration was not totally honest about WMDs and the pre-war build up to the Iraqi invasion. Also, multiple investigations have not "cleared" Blair and Bush because there haven't been "multiple" investigations into their conduct of the war in the first place. What multiple investigations have determined is that 1) the WMD threat was not as dire as thought, and 2) Cheney and other members of the Bush administration misled the American public through distortion of intelligence data, and 3) the pre-war assessments of WMDs and terrorist ties were not found to be totally accurate. This isn't entirely the blame of the administration, but they decided to embark on a war based upon this data.

Blair was cleared of lying in the independent Hutton and Butler investigations, the former giving a huge black eye to the rabidly biased BBC that had asserted otherwise.

As for Bush, here's a pretty good opinion piece that cites, among things, the Senate Intelligence Committee and Robb-Silberman reports.

"Yet in its report of 2004, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, while criticizing the CIA for relying on what in hindsight looked like weak or faulty intelligence, stated that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities.

The March 2005 report of the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission, which investigated intelligence failures on Iraq, reached the same conclusion, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . . Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments.""

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540

Once it became clear early on to Democrats that they weren't going to find any evidence of outright lying, since publicized internal memos reveal that they consciously decided to change strategy and focus on vague accusations of "misusing" intelligence in hopes of maximizing the chances of uncovering something that could be exploited for partisan gain, even suggesting strategic leaks to the media in defiance of Committee rules. This desire led to the decision to agree to label the orginal Senate Intelligence report, which stated that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgements related to Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities", and had been passed unanimously on a bipartisan basis, to be labeled "Phase One" with a future "Phase Two" report supposedly investigating the "use" of intelligence to follow.

The Phase Two report was released over the course of the last two years, with the section focusing on whether Bush or other administration officials "misused" intelligence in making public statements coming out a couple of months ago. Unlike the first report, this one was politicized as hell and rammed through in a partisan manner, being composed by two staffers (both Democrats) and eventually approved pretty much along party lines, with two liberal, anti-Bush Republicans joining the Democrats over the opposition of the rest. Despite that, I’m going to link to it anyway because it’s worth a read.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf

Even the Democrats who wrote this were forced to conclude almost across the board, especially on WMDs, that Bush’s statements "were substantiated by intelligence information". In a couple of areas they criticize him for not adding that there were alternative views on a particular topic, but the truth is that intelligence is almost always uncertain and disputed by its very nature, and if you ignore the partisan garbage and look at the intelligence reports cited by even the Democrats then it becomes clear that Bush consistently relied on the opinion of the majority of intelligence analysts, the speeches reviewed were often fact checked and in some cases largely written by the CIA, and the entire "Bush lied" argument crumbles apart.

If you read it make sure you also read the scathing Republican minority reports, including the proposed amendments that were denied even an up or down vote, where they point out numerous demonstrable factual inaccuracies, excluded intelligence reports, distortions, and outright lies present in the majority report. They also point out the absurdity of the notion that a politician should always cite every dissenting intelligence view in public statements by quoting the many Democrats (including, hilariously, Chairman Rockefeller himself) who repeatedly warned of the threat Hussein posed, often going even further and being more categorical than Bush, despite having access to most of the same intelligence and often for a time period stretching back long before Bush even took office.

Basically they fired their best shot and it came up blank.

This is an out and out distortion.

Richard Armitage is a REPUBLICAN. He got his start under Sen. Bob Dole, served under President Reagan, and after entering the private world, he was a signer to the "Project for the New American Century" letter sent to then President Clinton in 1998. (This is the infamous letter that supports an invasion of Iraq). He then served as a consultant for Bush under the 2000 campaign, after which he was appointed as Deputy Secretary of State during the Bush administration.

He was NOT a leftover from Clinton -- this is another distortion and an out and out falsehood.

Armitage was supportive of the war and later regretted such support due to the dubious intelligence that I referenced earlier (though I think he is playing a game of CYA with this admittance).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)

I didn't know that, thanks for sharing.

Also, Scooter Libby served time in jail for his involvement. If he was not the source of the leak, he certainly had a role somewhere and served time in jail for it.

"In his trial for his role in the Plame affair, United States v. Libby,[4][5] the jury convicted Libby on four of the five counts in the indictment: one count of obstruction of justice; two counts of perjury; and one count of making false statements to federal investigators."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby

Armitage inadvertantly revealed that Plame had worked at the CIA (NOT as a covert operative, contrary to popular belief) in an interview with The Washington Post's Bod Woodward, and none of the investigations ever found any evidence of an underlying crime.

Your entire "far right" point is irrelevant to the debate and your paragraph did nothing to prove a point. How many elected officials of the Democratic party were calling him "far right"? In comparison, how many elected Republicans have suggested that Obama is "far left"?

Pelosi described Bush's 8 years as exclusively right wing in regard to economics. Though the dem party consists of more than just elected officials, so it would appear that you just moved the goal posts.

You trot out some examples (Bush inviting Kennedy to watch a movie) that have nothing to do with real policy outcomes.

Even if that were relevent, I did go into policy outcomes later in my previous post.

Bush's Republican based supported him through most of his terms of office -- he didn't earn the ire "of his conservative base by compromising so much on liberal spending bills" because he had popular support from this base until the day he left office.

Just because his base still generally supported him doesn't mean they agreed with everything he did. Conservatives were up in arms when it looked like the amnesty bill would pass--just look at all the angry letters written to congressmen. As recent polls have shown, America is still a center-right country, thus the dem victories in 2006 & 2008 weren't the result of a leftward shift in America, but of the conservative base being demoralized.

I rarely heard any conservative complaints when he was signing these bills, at least from Bush conservatives or neo-conservatives. (Which were the bulk of his base.)

Then you weren't paying attention.

So, you can find "routine" examples of elected Democrats calling Bush a ""liar", an "idiot", and "unAmerican"? You can source them, provide links and everything?

"How am I losing to this idiot?" -Kerry, during the 2004 election cycle

"I don't like impugning anyone's integrity, but I really don't like being lied to," Mark Dayton (D-Minn) said. "Repeatedly, flagrantly, intentionally."

http://www.salon.com/news/2005/01/25/rice/

And that' without getting into the parts of the democratic party that doesn't hold office, who have called Bush all of those things ad nauseum.

Gore said that President Bush "took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure, dangerous to our troops, that was preordained and planned before 9-11," Gore told Tennessee Democrats at a party event. He said that Bush "betrayed us."

He did NOT scream at the "top of his lungs that the President was a traitor."

Another distortion on your part.

:doh:Someone who betrays their countrymen is a traitor, and Gore most certainly did yell at the top of his lungs. Come on, you're smarter than this.

Bush was an OK individual and I believe, at the core, a moderate Republican (especially compared to some of his supporters), but we also have to examine the end result of his policies. Also, I believe you have engaged in a bit of hyperbole here.

Glad to hear it, and I don't think Obama is a bad person, I just think he's very misguided. What hyperbole do you think I engaged in?

Are you talking about "No Child Left Behind? Kennedy didn't write that bill -- he was one of the sponsors, but he didn't write it. (He was not supportive of the bill at first, either) Furthermore, the Bush administration didn't "double" the size of the US Department of Education funding. "Since enactment, Congress increased federal funding of education, from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007."

It pays to conduct research before making claims.

He wasn't supportive of Bush's initial proposal, which was to put standards in place and provide incentives for teachers to try to get better results from their students. He did support the gov't-expansionist product that it became (and it became so largely due to his involvement). The funding isn't double, but it'd be a lot more than $54.4 billion if Bush had fully funded it--where do you think the claim often made by Bush critics that he "started NCLB, but then didn't fund it" comes from?

Medicare is supported by both the Left and Right, including conservatives such as Ronald Reagan when he was president.

Before I continue, let me say that just because Reagan supported something doesn't automatically make it conservative. Although I'm a conservative, I don't take a rightist position on every issue; I'm pro-gay and pro-animal rights.

Almost all in favor of privatizing and/or reforming medicare are conservatives, and it was originally conceived by liberals.

Republicans and Democrats have different ideals on this. Some Democrats supported this; some opposed it. We have to remember that the last time we had a mass amnesty grant to illegals was during the Reagan administration.

Some repubs voted for it as well, while others voted against. The American right generally favors strengthening border security and taking a line against illegals, while the American left generally favors lax border security. You're in blatant denial if you think that the amnesty bill wasn't liberal.

Please be specific.

-NCLB (it's final form, not Bush's original idea)

-Prescription Drug Bill

-Farm subsibidies

-energy bill

-2001 demand-side cuts

-2008 demand-side cuts

-McCain-Kennedy (amnesty)

-TARP

If I recall correctly, Bush didn't veto a single bill until after the 2006 midterms. He was pandering to everyone, including the not-so-conservative elements within his own party, in an effort to rally as much support behind him as he could for the purpose of passing Social Security reform, among other things. That style worked during his time as Governor of Texas. In Austin, compromising the way he did is considered an act of goodwill, and it was expected that whomever the compromise was made for would return the favor. Not so in DC.

Are you talking about EIC? Reagan supported that as well. Otherwise, the Bush tax cuts were not "Keynesian."

I'm talking about the demand-side cuts of 2001 and 2008.

TARP I was supported by Republicans.

:doh:Just because something is supported by republicans doesn't mean it wasn't liberal. There was more republican resistance to it than democrat.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Also, multiple investigations have not "cleared" Blair and Bush because there haven't been "multiple" investigations into their conduct of the war in the first place.

Sure there have, let's see there was the investigation by the Bush White House into whether or not they lied about WMD, and then there was the investigation by the Bush White House into whether or not they lied about Plame, and then there was the Fox News investigations all of which cleared the Bush White House from any wrong doing.

[Baculus]

Sure there have, let's see there was the investigation by the Bush White House into whether or not they lied about WMD, and then there was the investigation by the Bush White House into whether or not they lied about Plame, and then there was the Fox News investigations all of which cleared the Bush White House from any wrong doing.

Oh yeah, of course! Hope silly of me.

[Baculus]

I find it interesting, Italian, that you agreed with me at first. This was your original reply:

Originally Posted by TheItalianStallion View Post

Hilarious collection of falsehoods and half truths, aptly exposed by Baculus.

Hmmm!

How so?Assuming you're referring to the "12 words," Bush's statement that British intelligence concluded that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from "Africa" was true, and British intelligence still stands by that conclusion. They're also probably right, and it's been well established that Joe Wilson lied about his little "tea sipping" trip.

Others would disagree with you:

"Is a fib really a fib if the teller is unaware that he is uttering an untruth? That question appears to be the basis of the White House defense, having now admitted a falsehood in President Bush's claim, in his State of the Union address, that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa. But that defense is under mounting pressure from a variety of sources claiming that the White House could not have been unaware that the claim was false, because it had been checked out — and debunked — by U.S. intelligence a year before the President repeated it."

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,463779,00.html

The Yellowcake claim was based on forged documents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries

Specifically, what do you mean Joe Wilson lied about his trip?

]Blair was cleared of lying in the independent Hutton and Butler investigations, the former giving a huge black eye to the rabidly biased BBC that had asserted otherwise.

The Butler investigation was a British government investigation and it did not cover the politics involved in their efforts. In fact, this investigation came to the exact opposite conclusion, as far as the British are concerned:

"The review was published on 14 July 2004. Its main conclusion was that key intelligence used to justify the war with Iraq has been shown to be unreliable. It claims that the Secret Intelligence Service did not check its sources well enough and sometimes relied on third hand reports. It criticises the use of the 45 minute claim in the 2002 dossier as "unsubstantiated", and says that there was an over-reliance on Iraqi dissident sources. It also comments that warnings from the Joint Intelligence Committee on the limitations of the intelligence were not made clear. Overall it said that "more weight was placed on the intelligence than it could bear", and that judgements had stretched available intelligence "to the outer limits"."

Look at this interesting statement:

"It says that information from another country's intelligence service on Iraqi production of chemical and biological weapons was "seriously flawed", without naming the country."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler_Review

While we are talking about the British, I should also mention the so-called Downing Street Memo:

"The memo recorded the head of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) as expressing the view following his recent visit to Washington that "[George W.] Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." It also quoted Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as saying that it was clear that Bush had "made up his mind" to take military action but that "the case was thin", and the Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith as warning that justifying the invasion on legal grounds would be difficult."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_Memo

As for Bush, here's a pretty good opinion piece that cites, among things, the Senate Intelligence Committee and Robb-Silberman reports.

It is an opinion piece. :-)

"Yet in its report of 2004, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, while criticizing the CIA for relying on what in hindsight looked like weak or faulty intelligence, stated that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities.

Regarding this report, it said, "The report, which was released on July 9, 2004, identified numerous failures in the intelligence-gathering and -analysis process. The report found that these failures led to the creation of inaccurate materials that misled both government policy makers and the American public."

Regarding any "pressuring" by the Bush administration, this was supposed to be examined in phase II of the investigation. It was pretty much a white wash, and Democrats are not going to pursue the "pre-war deception" matter further.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq

Look at the assertions by the Bush administration, that Iraq was an immediate threat that had to be resolved due to its possession of WMD and its connection to Al-Qaida. Then the British impression that the Bush administration had already decided to invade Iraq and Cheney's insistence that a connection between 9-11 and Iraq must be found,. This if followed by the creation of the Office of Special Plans to fulfill the need for intelligence which will fill this objective to topple Saddam Hussein.

The Bush administration and the neo-conservatives saw what they wanted -- to invade Iraq. The Bush administration had members who had sent a letter to Clinton pressing for regime change in Iraq. What happens? 9-11. Thus, the invasion, to folks such as Paul Wolfowitz, that Iraq had to be invaded, that Saddam had to be toppled, and if data had to be falsified to achieve this, then so be it.

This is what a former CIA officer said about the Office of Special Plans:

"In an interview with the Scottish Sunday Herald, former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson said the OSP was "dangerous for US national security and a threat to world peace. [The OSP] lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam. It's a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality. They take bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignore anything contrary. They should be eliminated."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

The March 2005 report of the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission, which investigated intelligence failures on Iraq, reached the same conclusion, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . . Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments.""

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540

This article disagrees with this conclusion:

"On the November 14 edition of CNN's Paula Zahn Now, Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund falsely claimed that former "Democratic Senator Chuck Robb [VA] headed a commission which looked into whether or not the president misled and manipulated the intelligence data" relating to Iraq. According to Fund, the commission concluded that "it didn't happen." In fact, the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction -- co-chaired by Robb and Republican attorney and former judge Laurence Silberman -- did not investigate whether the Bush administration misled the public about intelligence. Nor, for that matter, has any other governmental entity to date. Rather, the Robb-Silberman Commission concluded that "[t]he Intelligence Community did not make or change any analytic judgments in response to political pressure" in the buildup to the Iraq war, a conclusion that has been disputed by some senior intelligence officials."

http://mediamatters.org/research/200511150009

Once it became clear early on to Democrats that they weren't going to find any evidence of outright lying, since publicized internal memos reveal that they consciously decided to change strategy and focus on vague accusations of "misusing" intelligence in hopes of maximizing the chances of uncovering something that could be exploited for partisan gain, even suggesting strategic leaks to the media in defiance of Committee rules.

Incorrect. Read the above material I have posted.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf

Even the Democrats who wrote this were forced to conclude almost across the board, especially on WMDs, that Bush’s statements "were substantiated by intelligence information".

Not true, as I have previously posted. Even the 2004 report found that the data was flawed. The Bush administration were told it was flawed by analysts and they still used it.

How is that not deceptive?

In a couple of areas they criticize him for not adding that there were alternative views on a particular topic, but the truth is that intelligence is almost always uncertain and disputed by its very nature, and if you ignore the partisan garbage and look at the intelligence reports cited by even the Democrats then it becomes clear that Bush consistently relied on the opinion of the majority of intelligence analysts, the speeches reviewed were often fact checked and in some cases largely written by the CIA, and the entire "Bush lied" argument crumbles apart.

Incorrect. The speeches were not largely written by the CIA. Also, with the creation of the Office of Special Plans, the Bush administration was relying on information that was dubious. Especially since CIA and military intelligence were being ignored at times since their conclusions were not fitting into the picture that the Bush administration desired.

"On CBS' 60 Minutes, former high-ranking CIA official Tyler Drumheller proved that the Bush administration dismissed clear-cut evidence undermining President Bush's central case for war -- that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. But in the nearly two days since this explosive report aired, the media have almost entirely ignored the story."

http://mediamatters.org/research/200604250006

Isn't it interesting how many former CIA members have been critical?

Armitage inadvertantly revealed that Plame had worked at the CIA (NOT as a covert operative, contrary to popular belief) in an interview with The Washington Post's Bod Woodward, and none of the investigations ever found any evidence of an underlying crime.

I will repeat it. Libby served time in jail. If nothing happened, then he wouldn't have interfered in the investigation.

Pelosi described Bush's 8 years as exclusively right wing in regard to economics.

She was right. That isn't scandalous, because supply-side economics is generally a conservative philosophy.

Though the dem party consists of more than just elected officials, so it would appear that you just moved the goal posts.

Eh? We are talking about the party, which means their elected officials.

Just because his base still generally supported him doesn't mean they agreed with everything he did.

I never said that, but considering all the shouts of "socialism," we didn't hear all this noise and protests by these conservatives during Bush's term. Even if he was a big spender.

Conservatives were up in arms when it looked like the amnesty bill would pass--just look at all the angry letters written to congressmen. As recent polls have shown, America is still a center-right country, thus the dem victories in 2006 & 2008 weren't the result of a leftward shift in America, but of the conservative base being demoralized.

The center-right meme has been repeated to death. Conservatives want the nation to be center-right, and they always believe that, if they repeat something enough, it will happy by repetition. Of course, they lost the last two elections, so they can repeat what they want.

Why would the conservative based be "demoralized" in 2006 or 2008? That seems like an excuse, if you as me.

Then you weren't paying attention."How am I losing to this idiot?" -Kerry, during the 2004 election cycle

"I don't like impugning anyone's integrity, but I really don't like being lied to," Mark Dayton (D-Minn) said. "Repeatedly, flagrantly, intentionally."

Gee. Those two quotes surely represent an example that the Democrats "routinely called Bush things like a "liar", an "idiot", and "unAmerican."

Either they routinely called Bush names or they didn't. That is why I said you were engaging in distortions. Routine means they did it all the time and often. A few remarks is not a "routine."

And that' without getting into the parts of the democratic party that doesn't hold office, who have called Bush all of those things ad nauseum.:doh:

Sure, some Democratic voters did. No doubt about it. But, again, they are not elected officials in the party, and that is what we are discussing.

Someone who betrays their countrymen is a traitor, and Gore most certainly did yell at the top of his lungs. Come on, you're smarter than this.

You said he called Bush a "traitor." Either he did or he didn't.

Before I continue, let me say that just because Reagan supported something doesn't automatically make it conservative.

The right-wing engage in slight of hand when it comes to Reagan. He is "conservative" -- except when he isn't supporting conservative programs.

Although I'm a conservative, I don't take a rightist position on every issue; I'm pro-gay and pro-animal rights.

I am glad to hear you have varied stances on issues.

Almost all in favor of privatizing and/or reforming medicare are conservatives, and it was originally conceived by liberals.

Liberals want to also reform Medicare -- that isn't just a conservative issue. And even though Medicare was conceived by liberals, it has been supported by both parties for years because it is a popular program and fulfills a social service to our elderly.

The American right generally favors strengthening border security and taking a line against illegals, while the American left generally favors lax border security.

I am not so sure if liberals favor "lax border security," but they do have more permissive attitudes towards the immigration issue. That much is true.

You're in blatant denial if you think that the amnesty bill wasn't liberal.-NCLB

But it has also been supported by Republicans, too.

-Prescription Drug Bill

The 2003 Medicare Prescription Bill was pushed and signed by the Bush administration:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Medicare_Prescription_Drug_Bill_Vote_Scandal%2C_2003

-Farm subsibidies

Both parties support farm subsidies and plenty of people from both parties have connections with Big Agro.

energy bill

Which?

2001 demand-side cuts

You have this totally wrong. The 2001 Tax Cut was a SUPPLY-SIDE, trickle-down economic cut. The main beneficiaries were the upper-tier tax payers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

-2008 demand-side cuts

See above.

-McCain-Kennedy (amnesty)

If you notice, McCain's name was on that bill. McCain is an ®.

-TARP

The Troubled Asset Relief Program was supported by BOTH parties and it was devised by the Bush administration.

If I recall correctly, Bush didn't veto a single bill until after the 2006 midterms.

Gee -- let's see. The Democrats won victories in 2006 and THEN he starts to veto bills?

He was pandering to everyone, including the not-so-conservative elements within his own party, in an effort to rally as much support behind him as he could for the purpose of passing Social Security reform, among other things.

]

He passed bills which were created by his party. This seems like an excuse, more then anything, I am sorry to say.

It had little to nothing to do with "rallying support" for "social security reform."

I'm talking about the demand-side cuts of 2001 and 2008

The 2001 tax cut was certainly not a demand-side cut, it's painful to hear you make those claims, considering the criticisms leveled towards the tax cuts and the fact that most of us who received a few hundred dollars from that tax cut will have to pay thousands of dollars for the resulting debt.

Another article about this subject"

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/supply_side.html

[deejaydana]

Baculus,

can you please get one of the following:

1) girlfriend

2) job

3) passport for travel outside los Estados Unidos

4) eyes that see the shade of gray

[Baculus]

Baculus,

can you please get one of the following:

1) girlfriend

2) job

3) passport for travel outside los Estados Unidos

4) eyes that see the shade of gray

Buck up! The next presidential election is in 2012. No need for a pity party.

[TheItalianStallion]

Whoops, didn't notice your reply until now. My bad.

You said he called Bush a "traitor." Either he did or he didn't.

Semantics. He said that Bush betrayed us. Someone who betrays his country is a traitor.

The right-wing engage in slight of hand when it comes to Reagan. He is "conservative" -- except when he isn't supporting conservative programs.

Reagan was, on the whole, conservative. That doesn't mean everything he did was conservative. I'm conservative on most things. The fact that I'm pro-gay doesn't make being pro-gay conservative.

Liberals want to also reform Medicare -- that isn't just a conservative issue. And even though Medicare was conceived by liberals, it has been supported by both parties for years because it is a popular program and fulfills a social service to our elderly.

Except conservative ideas for Medicare reform have been along the lines of market-based reform and reducing gov't, if not outright privatization. The prescription drug bill EXPANDED Medicare, and created MORE gov't.

I am not so sure if liberals favor "lax border security," but they do have more permissive attitudes towards the immigration issue. That much is true.

But it has also been supported by Republicans, too.

Moot for reasons given below.

The 2003 Medicare Prescription Bill was pushed and signed by the Bush administration:

Yes, and it was liberal. I'm not sure what your point is.

Both parties support farm subsidies and plenty of people from both parties have connections with Big Agro.

It was a bloated giveaway to pretty much everyone, which is the point: Bush tried to pander to everyone in an effort to rally support for items on his agenda, one of the chief ones being Social Security reform. Same goes for the Energy Bill, which went to everyone, including alternate energy interests.

You have this totally wrong. The 2001 Tax Cut was a SUPPLY-SIDE, trickle-down economic cut. The main beneficiaries were the upper-tier tax payers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

See above.

Nope. The 2001 and 2008 tax cuts were tax rebates (you know, those checks that got mailed out around tax time). The 2003 tax cuts were the supply-side ones, and even those were watered down to the point where they actually made the tax code even more progressive.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html?mod=opinion_ma%20in_review_and_outlooks

If you notice, McCain's name was on that bill. McCain is an ®.

Herbert Hoover was an ® too. You know, the guy who raised taxes, increased spending, increased regulation, and enacted tariffs. Or are you going to tell me that all that is conservative as well? I'll say it again, the fact that repubs do something doesn't automatically make it conservative.

The Troubled Asset Relief Program was supported by BOTH parties and it was devised by the Bush administration.

Bush was initially threatening to veto it, but eventually caved. Regardless, intervening in the market on a scale like TARP isn't conservative, and the fact that some repubs supported it (a lower % than the dems) doesn't change that.

Gee -- let's see. The Democrats won victories in 2006 and THEN he starts to veto bills?

He passed bills which were created by his party. This seems like an excuse, more then anything, I am sorry to say.

It had little to nothing to do with "rallying support" for "social security reform."

He passed bills from EVERYONE (both parties), and it was the same thing he did while Governor of Texas; grant favors for lawmakers who might not side with him, and have them return the favor by siding with him on parts of his agenda (in this case, social security reform, among other things). It worked in Texas. He got little in return for his favors in DC.

The 2001 tax cut was certainly not a demand-side cut, it's painful to hear you make those claims, considering the criticisms leveled towards the tax cuts and the fact that most of us who received a few hundred dollars from that tax cut will have to pay thousands of dollars for the resulting debt.

Yes it was; it was a tax rebate, hence why you received several hundred dollars. It was not a tax RATE cut (supply-side). And I agree that it was stupid. But I don't even consider demand-side "cuts" to be tax cuts; they're really just gov't spending, which is the real reason for our whopping debt.

I'll respond to the rest later.

[Burgold]

Libertarians. Never trust a word they say. Heck, even libertarians don't trust libertarians. Most of them are so dumb they call themselves librarians and wonder why the U.S. is so anti-books.

(Currently, it isn't even close.)

[Baculus]

Whoops, didn't notice your reply until now.

I was wondering why this post popped up over the last day! Considering the sheer length of my previous reply, I am not surprised you didn't respond to all of it! (No one has ever accused me of verbal conservation.)

My bad.Semantics. He said that Bush betrayed us. Someone who betrays his country is a traitor.

You can betray something such as ethics or an ideal without being a traitor, per se.

As defined by dictionary.com:

Betray:

1 : to lead astray; especially : seduce

2 : to deliver to an enemy by treachery

3 : to fail or desert especially in time of need <betrayed his family

4 a : to reveal unintentionally <betray one's true feelings> b : show, indicate c : to disclose in violation of confidence <betray a secret?

Traitor:

"1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty

2 : one who commits treason"

I would suggest that Gore was proclaiming that Bush "led us astray" -- betrayed -- American ideals. Now, if Bush had, say, cooperated with the enemy to "betray" the nation (as in the second definition of "betray"), then that would be a "traitor."

It's all semantics, but if you are going to put words in Gore's mouths, maybe we should adhere to his point.

Reagan was, on the whole, conservative. That doesn't mean everything he did was conservative. I'm conservative on most things. The fact that I'm pro-gay doesn't make being pro-gay conservative.

Well, yeah. It isn't always as easy as pinning something down as "liberal" or conservative: That is the point. There have been big government conservatives and small government liberals and vice-versa. There are conservative liberals and liberal conservatives -- the same goes for Democrats and Republicans as well. Many "conservatives" are actually relative liberal, even if they do not realize it. "Conservatives," or "traditionalists," have absorbed some liberal ideals that in past years were opposed or rejected. Take rock and roll, for example. When I was growing up, many conservatives opposed heavy metal, and now you can hear such music on Michael Savage's show.

As another example, the free market system, which "conservatives" now claim as their own, is a classical liberal construct which was opposed by some conservatives/traditionalists two hundred years ago. Even Edmund Burke, the "father" of modern conservatism, had some liberal sympathies, especially those that stem from the Age of Enlightenment and the British Constitution.

My recent conclusion is this: conservatism, traditionalism -- whatever -- is a shifty ideology. And by shifty, I mean an ideology that morphs and changes over the years.

There's a recent thread where a one or two folks are now saying that Bush wasn't even conservative. "Conservatism" does not mean the same thing every year or even every decade. If it doesn't change, then conservatism and traditionalism, to a certain degree, becomes irrelevant. That is why "traditionalists" generally do not support slavery or segregation in this day and age (as a whole -- folks such as Patrick Buchanan may be such an exception). That is why "traditionalists" have accepted the free market system and civil rights. and the same is true of some government systems, such as medicare.

Except conservative ideas for Medicare reform have been along the lines of market-based reform and reducing gov't, if not outright privatization.

We see what has happened with privatized health care -- massive cost increase, doubling over the last decade. If Medicare were privatized, it would be an even more expensive program.

Either way, conservatives have voted to sustain Medicare for years. Why? It's a popular program, and few politicians want to tell the elderly that their Medicare is being discontinued.

The prescription drug bill EXPANDED Medicare, and created MORE gov't.

Right -- voted into law by Republicans (and Democrats). It was also a massive boost to the drug/pharmaceutical industry. A trillion dollar boost.

Remember, we are talking about this issue because you said all these programs were "liberal," even though Republicans/conservatives voted for it.

It is a cop-out to blame everything on "liberals," especially if we have difficulty in delineating what "liberalism" means. Remember, classical liberals, especially in the Austrian school, were for fiscal restraint and minimal government.

Moot for reasons given below.

For what reasons?

Yes, and it was liberal. I'm not sure what your point is.

The White House and Congress was controlled by the GOP -- the main conservative party in this nation -- at this time. They passed this bill. If you don't see "my point" by this time, I cannot make it any clearer.

It was a bloated giveaway to pretty much everyone, which is the point: Bush tried to pander to everyone in an effort to rally support for items on his agenda, one of the chief ones being Social Security reform.

Progressives have long been anti-corporate -- that is why some people consider them to be "Marxists," which is a misnomer.

Your original "point" was that farm subsidies were "liberal." It is true that liberals and progressives have supported farmer credits and loans . . . for small farms and struggling farmers, that is. The problem is that some Republicans (and Democrats) support the Big Agriculture/Big Business and their lobby. This is entirely different than, say, the progressives (especially progressive Republicans) from a century ago in the mid-west who were very pro-farmer/pro-union/pro-working class.

There is nothing liberal or "left-wing" about supporting agricultural corporatism.

Same goes for the Energy Bill, which went to everyone, including alternate energy interests.

Which energy bill? The cap and trade Republican energy bill 2003?

Nope. The 2001 and 2008 tax cuts were tax rebates (you know, those checks that got mailed out around tax time). The 2003 tax cuts were the supply-side ones, and even those were watered down to the point where they actually made the tax code even more progressive.

Portraying the 2001 tax cuts as a "demand=side" cut is incorrect. It has all the hallmarks of "voodoo economics," as George H.W. Bush so labeled that economic theory. And there's hardly anything progressive about the tax act. If anything, as a link down below demonstrates, it is a regressive tax cut.

Herbert Hoover was an ® too. You know, the guy who raised taxes, increased spending, increased regulation, and enacted tariffs. Or are you going to tell me that all that is conservative as well?

As I said before, in the historical context, all (R's) does not always mean "conservative," especially if the conservatism of that time does not equal the conservatism of today. But John McCain has generally been accepted as a conservative, albeit a bit moderate on some subjects. Also, some conservatives support tariffs, especially in the name of "American First" protectionism; not all conservatives support the modern version of Free Trade.

I'll say it again, the fact that repubs do something doesn't automatically make it conservative.

I'll say it again -- for most part of this decade, conservatives supported the GOP. Now folks are suddenly decrying the party and their actions?

Bush was initially threatening to veto it, but eventually caved.

Incorrect. Bush supported TARP I -- he only threatened to veto if all the TARP funds weren't released.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/09/AR2009010902846.html?hpid=topnews

Regardless, intervening in the market on a scale like TARP isn't conservative, and the fact that some repubs supported it (a lower % than the dems) doesn't change that.

Just because it is "intervention" doesn't make it liberal, either. It is one thing to intervene in the market to enforce regulation, and it is another to intervene by providing billions of dollars to banks. TARP I is what it is, regardless of ideology.

He passed bills from EVERYONE (both parties), and it was the same thing he did while Governor of Texas; grant favors for lawmakers who might not side with him, and have them return the favor by siding with him on parts of his agenda (in this case, social security reform, among other things). It worked in Texas. He got little in return for his favors in DC.

How did he get "little in return"? Because some Democrats didn't support the Bush tax cuts or give full support in Afghanistan or Iraq? He got plenty of support from the Congressional Republicans: They were the ruling party, after all. Let's not act as if Bush was a Democrat or governing on a Democratic platform. He wasn't and didn't.

Yes it was; it was a tax rebate, hence why you received several hundred dollars. It was not a tax RATE cut (supply-side).

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 lowered tax rates and reduced capital gains and dividend taxes, in addition to cutting other taxes such as the gift and estate taxes. These are all "supply side" reductions. In addition, as the following article states:

"The tax cuts are regressive. In 2005, EGTRRA, JGTRRA, and WFTRA tax cuts averaged 2.6 percent of after-tax income ($742) for those in the middle quintile of the income distribution. Those in the top 1 percent received an average tax cut of 4.6 percent of after-tax income ($34,948). The top one-tenth of 1 percent-taxpayers with income greater than $1.75 million-received an average tax cut of 5.6 percent of after-tax income ($185,533)."

http://www.urban.org/publications/901006.html

This cannot be considered a "demand side" tax cut, because it wasn't necessarily aimed at the demand side. The idea is to stimulate the supply-side, which would hopefully lead to greater financial productivity (which some have argues was the actual result).

[quute]And I agree that it was stupid. But I don't even consider demand-side "cuts" to be tax cuts; they're really just gov't spending, which is the real reason for our whopping debt.

Please reference the above response.

[Oldskool]

Both parties do it but in sheer volume as of right now it's easily the left; They always have the media in their pocket but as they control House/Senate/White House, they use it as their pulpit.

It's tilted the other way (sans the media) when the GOP is in charge.